oh, hysteria

Obviously this is late. Donna no longer has to feel bad about blogging before Monday night because I’ve totally crashed through that one and put this off until Tuesday night. Feel free to reprimand me just a bit. I gave my essay precedence on Sunday night. And if anything in this blog post resembles ideas addressed in lecture way too much feel free to call me out on it.

Now for my first Freudian impression.
1) what is going on?
2) wait what?
3) was that sexual undertone?
4) what??

Needless to say my head probably spun within the first five pages. I’m not really sure what to pin it on exactly. Maybe it’s hard for me to understand Freud because of how he says things. He did write it as a case study so maybe I just need to get my bearings. Wait, should I even be making excuses for my lack of understanding when Freud really is talking about some complex ideas? Cue beard stroking moment here.

Why yes, Freud, it is a little awkward that you’re publishing a case study that is supposed to be a bit confidential. It’s also a little awkward how you relate everything to one’s past and relationships with sexuality ties as a part of every single problem. Did that sound a little too harsh? Whoops.

The symptoms and the psychological connections to Dora’s past that Freud does explain are really quite interesting. And honestly, they make sense. But I just can’t get past how much everything seems to be related to sex. The evolution of our sexuality as we grow older (according to Freud) sounds really interesting. Things like that I can see the logic in. But the theories of bisexuality? The rampant libido that seems to be the reason for many of Dora’s problems? Curing women of hysteria by stimulating them to orgasm? What the hell late 19th/early 20th century science? What is going through their heads? The constant presence of the subject as an answer to symptoms of hysteria spurs a sort of frustrated confusion for me. Three letters, one question: Why?

I, of course, can’t just yell at Freud for his excessive sexual under and overtones. It is definitely important to give credit where credit is due. And his ideas make sense. They’re innovating and remind me of ideas that will soon be refined with time. In some of his conclusions he was onto something, in others I really don’t know what he was thinking. He’s not known in the psychological field for nothing. Freud, you’ve got some important and interesting ideas, I’ll give you that. But the question still remains in my head: What’s with all the sex (and everything related to it)?

Discussing Freud’s view on sexuality and today’s views will certainly be interesting.